New Delhi: The US withdrawal from the World Health Organisation (WHO) marks a turning point in global health governance. US President Donald Trump had long criticised WHO for being “China-centric” and had threatened to cut ties—a move that has now materialized. Given that the US has historically been WHO’s largest funder, its exit leaves both a financial and strategic vacuum, raising pressing questions about the future of international health collaborations.
For India, this moment presents both a challenge and an opportunity. While reduced funding could impact critical health programs—many of which India has benefited from—this shift also opens doors for India to assume a leadership role in shaping global health strategies. With a robust pharmaceutical industry, a growing digital health ecosystem, and an increasing diplomatic presence in global health forums, can India step up to bridge the gap and drive a new, multipolar approach to international health governance? Or will the funding crisis further strain essential health initiatives, leaving millions vulnerable?
Experts argue that while the funding shortfall could impact vital global health programs, including those India has historically relied on, this shift also creates an opportunity for India to take a more prominent leadership role in shaping global health strategies and fostering international collaborations.
Experts Weigh In on the Implications
Dr Sara Bennett, Professor and Vice Chair, International Health Department , Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said, “It remains to be seen what the effects of the U.S. withdrawal from WHO will be. However, the financing model for WHO has been broken for some time. Specifically, WHO receives funding from both assessed and voluntary contributions. Assessed contributions are mandatory payments from member countries, whereas voluntary contributions are discretionary and typically targeted toward specific projects. Currently, assessed contributions make up less than 20 per cent of WHO’s overall budget, leaving WHO with unreliable and unpredictable funding. If the world believes WHO is essential (and I certainly do), then more reliable funding should be secured. There is an opportunity for India to provide leadership in this regard.”
Prashant Khadayate, Director – Lifesciences Consulting and Research, GlobalData, added, “The role of the US has been crucial in supporting WHO’s healthcare initiatives worldwide. Ideally, the US would reconsider its decision to exit WHO. In the absence of this, there will be a funding void and a gap in support for various WHO initiatives. To manage this shortfall, WHO’s partner countries and affiliated organizations will need to contribute more. India could play a pivotal role by increasing its contributions and supporting WHO’s mission of healthcare equity across the world. India has already demonstrated its capability by supplying free vaccines to multiple countries during the COVID-19 crisis. Moreover, India has shown that in times of global calamity, it can play a crucial role in response efforts.”Highlighting both the risks and opportunities , Vinoj Manning, Chief Executive Officer, Ipas Development Foundation, “The US withdrawal from WHO presents both challenges and opportunities for global health, particularly for India. While the reduction in U.S. funding—historically comprising roughly 15 per cent of WHO’s budget—will undoubtedly impact WHO programs globally, including those in India, it also creates space for India to assume a more prominent leadership role. This funding gap could strain programs addressing critical health issues. For example, WHO’s work on polio eradication, which India has significantly benefited from, could face setbacks. The WHO collaborates with the Indian government and other partners to maintain high vaccination coverage and prevent the reintroduction of the virus.”
“India can leverage this opportunity to strengthen its engagement with WHO, advocate for its healthcare priorities, and foster South-South collaboration to address shared health challenges. India’s pharmaceutical industry, a leading global supplier of affordable generic medicines, could play a crucial role in ensuring access to essential medicines worldwide. Exploring alternative funding models, such as public-private partnerships and increased domestic investment, will be key. India’s healthcare budget, while growing, could be further leveraged to support global health initiatives,”Manning added.
The US Exit: A Power Vacuum and India’s Role
A leading healthcare analyst, speaking to ETHealthworld on the condition of anonymity, explained, “The US withdrawal from WHO significantly weakens the organisation’s financial base and its ability to coordinate global health initiatives. Historically, the US has played a key role in setting WHO’s agenda, funding critical health programs, and shaping research priorities. Its exit creates a power vacuum, allowing emerging players like India, China, and the EU to exert greater influence over global health governance.”
“India, with its robust pharmaceutical industry, digital health expertise, and strong public health infrastructure, is well-positioned to step up. However, India alone cannot bridge the funding gap left by the U.S. To effectively shape global health policy, India should strengthen its representation in WHO’s decision-making bodies to ensure that perspectives from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are prioritized. Additionally, India should advocate for governance reforms within WHO to reduce donor-driven priorities and create a more equitable decision-making framework. Leveraging platforms like G20, BRICS, and the Global South to establish a multipolar health governance model will be crucial. Expanding its technical contributions to WHO, particularly in areas where it has demonstrated leadership—such as vaccine equity, antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and digital health innovations—will also be key,” the analyst added.
India’s Funding Challenges and the Path Forward
Informing that WHO is not a major funder of health programs in India. In fact, external development partners collectively account for less than 1 per cent of India’s total health spending, Dr. Bennett further noted, “There is very limited external funding for health initiatives in India. The main donors currently supporting health in India are USAID and the Gates Foundation. Accordingly, ongoing cuts to USAID funding in India will have a far more significant impact than cuts to WHO funding. While USAID’s contribution is a small fraction of total health expenditure, it is often directed toward vulnerable populations—such as HIV prevention among sex workers and marginalized communities—making these groups particularly vulnerable to funding shortfalls.”
Khadayate added “According to the health minister’s statement, ongoing projects and programs in India will not be impacted by the U.S. withdrawal, as India is capable of managing its own health objectives. Health is now a national priority, reflected in the increased budget allocation to the healthcare sector in 2025. The government has allocated INR 95,957 crore to healthcare, marking a 9.46per cent increase compared to the previous year.”
“As for TB, India is already working on its plan to reduce tobacco use. The government has set a target of a 30 per cent reduction in tobacco use by 2025 from the baseline levels of 2010. India has already exceeded the 2020 target of a 15 per cent reduction. India is also focusing heavily on non-communicable disease prevention, control, and screening as part of the National Health Mission. India is always keen to share best practices with multiple countries and could further support nations in tobacco control and non-communicable diseases based on the success seen in India,” he added.
Meanwhile, the Healthcare analyst informed that a reduction in US contributions will impact WHO-backed initiatives in India, including: Programs such as HIV/AIDS control, tuberculosis elimination, and routine immunization efforts. He added that disruptions will be seen in vaccine supply chains and emergency health responses. Potential financial and operational setbacks for WHO-supported field staff and surveillance structures at district levels in India.
However, the analyst also stated that India has already been moving towards localised health initiatives through domestic and philanthropic funding. This trend needs to be further accelerated to mitigate dependency on external funding.
Talking about the alternative funding models, analysts said, “While WHO’s direct financial contribution to India’s healthcare sector is relatively small compared to the country’s overall health budget, its technical assistance has been valuable. To sustain global health efforts despite WHO funding reductions, India can: Strengthen Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) to enhance financing for health infrastructure, disease control programs, and digital health innovations. Increase Domestic Health Spending to align with global averages and reduce reliance on international aid. Leverage Multilateral and Bilateral Funding from institutions such as JICA, ADB, and philanthropic entities like the Gates Foundation. Enhance South-South Cooperation Mechanisms, such as a BRICS Health Fund or an India-Africa Health Initiative, pooling resources among LMICs for global disease control efforts. A structured transition to these models will help India maintain continuity in its health programs despite shifting geopolitical funding landscapes.
Manning emphasised the importance of continued international collaboration, “India must work with other nations to ensure that WHO remains a strong and effective organisation, capable of addressing global health threats. It is crucial to maintain focus on areas like maternal health, HIV/AIDS, infectious diseases, tobacco control, and non-communicable diseases (NCDs) to ensure continued progress despite shifts in global health funding.”
Experts inform that the US withdrawal from WHO presents significant funding and governance challenges, it also offers India a unique opportunity to emerge as a leader in global health governance. By increasing its financial contributions, strengthening global alliances, and advocating for WHO reforms, India can transition from being a recipient of global health programs to a strategic architect of international health policies.New Delhi: The US withdrawal from the World Health Organisation (WHO) marks a turning point in global health governance. US President Donald Trump had long criticised WHO for being “China-centric” and had threatened to cut ties—a move that has now materialized. Given that the US has historically been WHO’s largest funder, its exit leaves both a financial and strategic vacuum, raising pressing questions about the future of international health collaborations.
For India, this moment presents both a challenge and an opportunity. While reduced funding could impact critical health programs—many of which India has benefited from—this shift also opens doors for India to assume a leadership role in shaping global health strategies. With a robust pharmaceutical industry, a growing digital health ecosystem, and an increasing diplomatic presence in global health forums, can India step up to bridge the gap and drive a new, multipolar approach to international health governance? Or will the funding crisis further strain essential health initiatives, leaving millions vulnerable?
Experts argue that while the funding shortfall could impact vital global health programs, including those India has historically relied on, this shift also creates an opportunity for India to take a more prominent leadership role in shaping global health strategies and fostering international collaborations.
Experts Weigh In on the Implications
Dr Sara Bennett, Professor and Vice Chair, International Health Department , Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, said, “It remains to be seen what the effects of the U.S. withdrawal from WHO will be. However, the financing model for WHO has been broken for some time. Specifically, WHO receives funding from both assessed and voluntary contributions. Assessed contributions are mandatory payments from member countries, whereas voluntary contributions are discretionary and typically targeted toward specific projects. Currently, assessed contributions make up less than 20 per cent of WHO’s overall budget, leaving WHO with unreliable and unpredictable funding. If the world believes WHO is essential (and I certainly do), then more reliable funding should be secured. There is an opportunity for India to provide leadership in this regard.”
Prashant Khadayate, Director – Lifesciences Consulting and Research at GlobalData, added: “The role of the US has been crucial in supporting WHO’s healthcare initiatives worldwide. Ideally, the U.S. would reconsider its decision to exit WHO. In the absence of this, there will be a funding void and a gap in support for various WHO initiatives. To manage this shortfall, WHO’s partner countries and affiliated organizations will need to contribute more. India could play a pivotal role by increasing its contributions and supporting WHO’s mission of healthcare equity across the world. India has already demonstrated its capability by supplying free vaccines to multiple countries during the COVID-19 crisis. Moreover, India has shown that in times of global calamity, it can play a crucial role in response efforts.”
Highlighting both the risks and opportunities , Vinoj Manning, Chief Executive Officer, Ipas Development Foundation, “The US withdrawal from WHO presents both challenges and opportunities for global health, particularly for India. While the reduction in U.S. funding—historically comprising roughly 15 per cent of WHO’s budget—will undoubtedly impact WHO programs globally, including those in India, it also creates space for India to assume a more prominent leadership role. This funding gap could strain programs addressing critical health issues. For example, WHO’s work on polio eradication, which India has significantly benefited from, could face setbacks. The WHO collaborates with the Indian government and other partners to maintain high vaccination coverage and prevent the reintroduction of the virus.”
“India can leverage this opportunity to strengthen its engagement with WHO, advocate for its healthcare priorities, and foster South-South collaboration to address shared health challenges. India’s pharmaceutical industry, a leading global supplier of affordable generic medicines, could play a crucial role in ensuring access to essential medicines worldwide. Exploring alternative funding models, such as public-private partnerships and increased domestic investment, will be key. India’s healthcare budget, while growing, could be further leveraged to support global health initiatives,”Manning added.
The US Exit: A Power Vacuum and India’s Role
A leading healthcare analyst, speaking to ETHealthworld on the condition of anonymity, explained, “The US withdrawal from WHO significantly weakens the organisation’s financial base and its ability to coordinate global health initiatives. Historically, the US has played a key role in setting WHO’s agenda, funding critical health programs, and shaping research priorities. Its exit creates a power vacuum, allowing emerging players like India, China, and the EU to exert greater influence over global health governance.”
“India, with its robust pharmaceutical industry, digital health expertise, and strong public health infrastructure, is well-positioned to step up. However, India alone cannot bridge the funding gap left by the U.S. To effectively shape global health policy, India should strengthen its representation in WHO’s decision-making bodies to ensure that perspectives from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are prioritized. Additionally, India should advocate for governance reforms within WHO to reduce donor-driven priorities and create a more equitable decision-making framework. Leveraging platforms like G20, BRICS, and the Global South to establish a multipolar health governance model will be crucial. Expanding its technical contributions to WHO, particularly in areas where it has demonstrated leadership—such as vaccine equity, antimicrobial resistance (AMR), and digital health innovations—will also be key,” the analyst added.
India’s Funding Challenges and the Path Forward
Informing that WHO is not a major funder of health programs in India. In fact, external development partners collectively account for less than 1 per cent of India’s total health spending, Dr. Bennett further noted, “There is very limited external funding for health initiatives in India. The main donors currently supporting health in India are USAID and the Gates Foundation. Accordingly, ongoing cuts to USAID funding in India will have a far more significant impact than cuts to WHO funding. While USAID’s contribution is a small fraction of total health expenditure, it is often directed toward vulnerable populations—such as HIV prevention among sex workers and marginalized communities—making these groups particularly vulnerable to funding shortfalls.”
Khadayate added “According to the health minister’s statement, ongoing projects and programs in India will not be impacted by the U.S. withdrawal, as India is capable of managing its own health objectives. Health is now a national priority, reflected in the increased budget allocation to the healthcare sector in 2025. The government has allocated INR 95,957 crore to healthcare, marking a 9.46per cent increase compared to the previous year.”
“As for TB, India is already working on its plan to reduce tobacco use. The government has set a target of a 30 per cent reduction in tobacco use by 2025 from the baseline levels of 2010. India has already exceeded the 2020 target of a 15 per cent reduction. India is also focusing heavily on non-communicable disease prevention, control, and screening as part of the National Health Mission. India is always keen to share best practices with multiple countries and could further support nations in tobacco control and non-communicable diseases based on the success seen in India,” he added.
Meanwhile, the Healthcare analyst informed that a reduction in US contributions will impact WHO-backed initiatives in India, including: Programs such as HIV/AIDS control, tuberculosis elimination, and routine immunization efforts. He added that disruptions will be seen in vaccine supply chains and emergency health responses. Potential financial and operational setbacks for WHO-supported field staff and surveillance structures at district levels in India.
However, the analyst also stated that India has already been moving towards localised health initiatives through domestic and philanthropic funding. This trend needs to be further accelerated to mitigate dependency on external funding.
Talking about the alternative funding models, analysts said, “While WHO’s direct financial contribution to India’s healthcare sector is relatively small compared to the country’s overall health budget, its technical assistance has been valuable. To sustain global health efforts despite WHO funding reductions, India can: Strengthen Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) to enhance financing for health infrastructure, disease control programs, and digital health innovations. Increase Domestic Health Spending to align with global averages and reduce reliance on international aid. Leverage Multilateral and Bilateral Funding from institutions such as JICA, ADB, and philanthropic entities like the Gates Foundation. Enhance South-South Cooperation Mechanisms, such as a BRICS Health Fund or an India-Africa Health Initiative, pooling resources among LMICs for global disease control efforts. A structured transition to these models will help India maintain continuity in its health programs despite shifting geopolitical funding landscapes.
Manning emphasised the importance of continued international collaboration, “India must work with other nations to ensure that WHO remains a strong and effective organisation, capable of addressing global health threats. It is crucial to maintain focus on areas like maternal health, HIV/AIDS, infectious diseases, tobacco control, and non-communicable diseases (NCDs) to ensure continued progress despite shifts in global health funding.”
Experts inform that the US withdrawal from WHO presents significant funding and governance challenges, it also offers India a unique opportunity to emerge as a leader in global health governance. By increasing its financial contributions, strengthening global alliances, and advocating for WHO reforms, India can transition from being a recipient of global health programs to a strategic architect of international health policies.
